07/12/2012 Newsnight


07/12/2012

In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines, presented by Emily Maitlis.


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 07/12/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Tonight, turning crisis into opportunity. Faced with the worst

:00:14.:00:18.

economic conditions in decades, is it time to think big, and downsize

:00:18.:00:22.

the state. If you were starting from scratch, what would the

:00:22.:00:25.

Government control. We ask our radical thinkers how big it should

:00:25.:00:31.

Also tonight, more trouble and strive, the Government wants

:00:31.:00:35.

churches -- strife, the Government want Channel Tunnels to hold gay

:00:35.:00:41.

marriage. What do the Clergy make of this, we ask a couple of members.

:00:41.:00:48.

The map of the Blitz where every red dot marks a bomb. When they

:00:48.:00:57.

walked back home the house had been bombed and they were nowhere to be

:00:58.:01:02.

found. Good evening, you never want a

:01:02.:01:06.

serious crisis to go to waste, Obama's former righthand man, Rahm

:01:06.:01:10.

Emanuel, memorably claimed. Tonight, faced with one of the bleakest

:01:10.:01:14.

outlooks the country has ever faced. We asked what it would take to make

:01:14.:01:20.

a clean start of the crisis. We enter territory we rarely touch,

:01:20.:01:24.

the realms of what if. What if you could start again, to take account

:01:24.:01:28.

of your straitened times, would you roll back Government to its core

:01:28.:01:35.

purpose, if so, what would that be? How would we define our welfare

:01:35.:01:40.

sector, and what would we leave to the private sector.

:01:40.:01:45.

Don't like the state we are in, perhaps we should...start again. Go

:01:45.:01:49.

back to something like a blank sheet of paper. Afterall, it is

:01:49.:01:55.

only 100 years or so Agatha the British state was far smaller.

:01:55.:02:05.
:02:05.:02:25.

-- or so ago the British state was So how did we get from there to

:02:25.:02:30.

this? The short answer is war. Taylor says the state established a

:02:30.:02:34.

grip over citizens and never let go. That grip has got tighter, given

:02:34.:02:38.

our tight fiscal times, is there a case for deciding what we really

:02:38.:02:44.

need the state to do, and what we can perhaps do without. It is what

:02:44.:02:47.

management consultants call zero- based budgeting. Under the model

:02:47.:02:52.

that we have been pursuing, basically, since World War I, the

:02:52.:02:56.

way the state starts providing private goods increasingly to the

:02:56.:03:01.

population. You have an obvious problem, you will run into proob

:03:01.:03:05.

emblem one day that what has -- a problem one day, that what has been

:03:05.:03:10.

given can't be taken away. You must have free bus passs or TV licenses,

:03:10.:03:14.

or free access to university, then you try to take it away, there is a

:03:14.:03:18.

big kerfuffle, sometimes you can take it away a bit, and sometimes

:03:18.:03:25.

not. This whole system is crazy. There has been plenty written about

:03:25.:03:29.

reducing the state to its core. Economists like Milton Friedman,

:03:29.:03:35.

who won the Nobel Prize, argue that state bureaucracy has not only

:03:35.:03:39.

infant sized citizens, they have a powerful incentive to increase

:03:39.:03:44.

their size and scope. His ideas were so controversial, that even

:03:44.:03:48.

his Nobel ceremony was interrupted by protest. I believe that the

:03:48.:03:52.

essential element of putting Britain on a prosperous track, for

:03:52.:03:57.

a long period of time, is to get the Government reduced in size, and

:03:57.:04:02.

to get rid of Government control over large areas of your economy.

:04:02.:04:08.

Friedman thought you could reduce the role of the state to a few core

:04:08.:04:11.

functions, defence of the nation. We need a mill treatment

:04:11.:04:14.

arbitration of disputes and enforcements of contracts, we need

:04:14.:04:17.

a court service. And protecting the individual from crime against

:04:17.:04:23.

themselves and their property. So we need a police force. And that,,

:04:23.:04:28.

pretty much is it. Of course, that would mean the

:04:28.:04:31.

state withdrawing from areas like health and education. Which, for

:04:31.:04:35.

many, perhaps the majority, is, well, unthinkable.

:04:35.:04:42.

But remember, not that long ago, the majority thought the state was

:04:42.:04:45.

best-placed to build cars and run airlines. Although health and

:04:45.:04:49.

education are vital, are they more vital thaned food. We don't have a

:04:49.:04:53.

national food service. Where state agencies do get involved with food,

:04:53.:04:58.

we get the common agricultural policy, and the result is often

:04:58.:05:02.

criminal waste and more expensive food for the public. The classical

:05:02.:05:06.

liberal views, that the irreducable core of what the state should spent

:05:06.:05:10.

on is public -- spend on is public goods. The classic is street

:05:10.:05:14.

lighting. Once the street lights up everybody can use them, they are

:05:14.:05:18.

non-excludable, as it is put. If people had to buy them privately,

:05:18.:05:21.

there would be an undersupply of them. I won't buy them becausely

:05:21.:05:24.

think you will buy them and I will free ride on you, and you will do

:05:24.:05:29.

the same you force people to buy them through taxation. Public goods,

:05:29.:05:33.

the famous public goods are things like street lighting and maybe

:05:33.:05:36.

rubbish collection, national defence, the rule of law, which

:05:36.:05:41.

comprises of the police and the courts. Some think that modern

:05:41.:05:45.

politics is hastening the day when we have a reduced core state, that

:05:45.:05:49.

so many voters currently benefit from state spending, either as

:05:49.:05:53.

employees or recipients, that any reductions become impossible.

:05:53.:05:58.

Witness the rows this week over the measures contained in the Autumn

:05:58.:06:01.

Statement. That means we will simply carry on borrowing until the

:06:01.:06:07.

markets say enough, and we find ourselves with no alternative, than

:06:07.:06:12.

to contemplate that blank page. With me now is Nassim Nicholas

:06:12.:06:20.

Taleb, author of Black Swan, and the former economic advise Tory

:06:20.:06:27.

George W Bush, and Matthew Taylor. If we were starting from scratch

:06:27.:06:33.

now, you looking in on this country, what would be core purpose and what

:06:33.:06:37.

would be auxiliary? There is a social contract between citizens

:06:37.:06:42.

and their state, the citizens agree to pay taxes in exchange for the

:06:42.:06:48.

state to do certain things. The voice of what the state ought to do

:06:48.:06:52.

will vary from country to country. The French answer to where you draw

:06:52.:06:57.

the line between public and private sector is different from the

:06:57.:07:01.

English answer. Is it to do the economic state the country is in?

:07:01.:07:05.

No it isn't. The Soviet Union discovered is the state can run out

:07:05.:07:11.

of money and cease to exist. We are at a critical moment in the United

:07:11.:07:13.

Kingdom and the United States, and all the indebted countries, where

:07:14.:07:18.

we have to address the question that what is the purpose and role

:07:18.:07:21.

of the function of the state. You can't have a system where the

:07:21.:07:25.

amount of money coming in is less than the amount of money going out,

:07:25.:07:33.

in payments, in benefits, to the public. So we have to be balanced.

:07:33.:07:39.

I'm saying Government has to take in more than it spends or it seass

:07:39.:07:45.

to be able to survive. Give me specific -- Saezs to be able to

:07:45.:07:50.

survive. Give me specifics? Given that everything has to be cut, we

:07:50.:07:54.

don't have enough cash, not here or in the United States to pay for

:07:54.:07:57.

everything promised to the citizens, so we have to put everything. There

:07:57.:08:02.

is no choice, it is not a redistribution argument F you taxed,

:08:02.:08:07.

for example, 1 -- if you taxed, for example, 100% of American citizens'

:08:07.:08:11.

income, we would still have a multigenerational debt problem. It

:08:11.:08:15.

is not a question of redistribution. Everything has to be renegotiated

:08:15.:08:19.

between citizens and state as to who will deliver what. The state is

:08:19.:08:24.

defaulting on the citizen, that is what austerity is. Would you agree

:08:24.:08:29.

that redistribution is way beyond this? I hate to introduce concept

:08:29.:08:32.

actual clarity to the debate, you have to clarify the size of the

:08:32.:08:35.

state, what the state does and regulation by the state. You could

:08:35.:08:38.

have a state that spend as lot of money, but doesn't provide services,

:08:38.:08:42.

or you could have a state that doesn't spend much money or provide

:08:42.:08:46.

services but regulates a lot. There is lots of ways the state

:08:46.:08:50.

influences things. We shouldn't underestimate the way the state

:08:50.:08:54.

changes any way. In the last few years the state has gotten out of

:08:54.:08:57.

the financing of higher education but more money has gone into early

:08:57.:09:00.

years. The state has gone out of the funding of nationalised

:09:00.:09:04.

industries. So actually, over time, what the state does and doesn't do,

:09:04.:09:07.

does actually naturally change. you think we are on the right track,

:09:07.:09:10.

with the examples you have used, do you think this is the right

:09:10.:09:14.

direction of travel? Well, we clearly are going to face some

:09:14.:09:17.

extremely difficult choices, coming up, there is no question about that.

:09:17.:09:20.

Whatever you think the right economic strategy is, we have got a

:09:20.:09:23.

big hole, and we will have to address that hole. That will take

:09:23.:09:27.

some difficult decisions. I think probably, the problem for the

:09:27.:09:30.

coalition at the moment, is it has ring-fenced certain areas, and if

:09:30.:09:34.

it is to be believed, the consequences that large swathes of

:09:35.:09:40.

Government will virtually disappear, in order to defend certain sacred

:09:40.:09:44.

cows, I don't think that is a terribly rational strategy. We are

:09:44.:09:48.

on hypothetical ground, starting with a blank sheet, and saying what

:09:48.:09:53.

should happen? I'm looking, smiling at this debate. The whole entire

:09:53.:09:57.

debate was Milton Friedman's archaic. The point is not the state,

:09:57.:10:03.

it is the private sector, the problem is to do with size. The

:10:03.:10:08.

most successful model in modern history, it is not the nation state.

:10:08.:10:14.

It was created recently, it failed twice in Ancient Egypt and China T

:10:14.:10:20.

started again, a century-and-a-half ago in Europe as an epidemic. The

:10:20.:10:27.

model that has worked is the bottom-up semi-state model. The

:10:27.:10:31.

governance is much better at the local level, city states. When you

:10:31.:10:35.

say city states, I think of Singapore, that can't work across

:10:36.:10:40.

the world? New York is a city state. Switzerland is a bottom-up

:10:40.:10:45.

municiple. These are smaller places? The idea

:10:45.:10:49.

that size matters a lot for more governance than the nature of the

:10:50.:10:52.

political system. That is what people fail to understand. Let me

:10:52.:10:56.

explain, you are top-down, sitting in Whitehall or Washington, and you

:10:56.:11:01.

make a mistake, you have no skin in the game, nobody will know a spread

:11:01.:11:05.

sheet will know about your mistake. It is theoretical. You are a local

:11:05.:11:08.

mayor, you make a mistake, and you are penalised by people around you.

:11:08.:11:13.

Let me add one thing. Let me bring you in at this exact point, the

:11:13.:11:18.

idea of localism and being accountable? I think it is exactly

:11:18.:11:25.

bright, Benjamin Barber is bringing out a book about If Mayors Ruled

:11:25.:11:30.

the World, mayors are more popular than prime ministers and presidents,

:11:30.:11:35.

nation state is too far away. 50 years ago a sociologist famously

:11:35.:11:38.

said in the modern world the state is too big for the small things in

:11:38.:11:48.
:11:48.:11:49.

life and too big small for the big things in life. It is about how the

:11:49.:11:52.

state operates. My profession is on risk business, you want to know the

:11:52.:11:57.

risk of projects failing, or not being delivered on time and cost

:11:57.:12:02.

overrun and failure to predict, simple. A �100 million project has

:12:02.:12:07.

up to 30% more cost overruns than a �5 billion project. The reason we

:12:08.:12:13.

have size is to save money, you agree, and to make things easier.

:12:13.:12:17.

Size comes with more and more errors errors that can be

:12:17.:12:21.

devastating. If it is that simple, if small things are safer and work

:12:22.:12:28.

better, why do we think so big, why do we talk in big Government?

:12:28.:12:32.

I do think there is an element of once, I think Milton Friedman said,

:12:32.:12:37.

there is nothing so permanent than a temporary Government programme.

:12:37.:12:41.

Once you create something, it is difficult to deconstruct it and

:12:41.:12:47.

take it away. Again, I think the critical issue isn't about the size

:12:47.:12:53.

of Government, it is about balancing how much you bring in, in

:12:53.:12:57.

terms of cash, and how much you are spending. The problem we face in

:12:57.:13:01.

all the industrialised countries is that, since the Second World War,

:13:01.:13:05.

we have been very lucky with demographics, we had baby-boom. The

:13:05.:13:09.

amount of money coming into the system was larger than the amount

:13:09.:13:13.

that needed to be paid out. This demographic has begun to change,

:13:13.:13:18.

and we built all our expectations that we could continue funding with

:13:18.:13:22.

debt permanently, that isn't true. Hang on, we also allowed, over the

:13:22.:13:26.

last 20 or 30 years, a massive increase in inequality, that

:13:26.:13:31.

increase in the level of inequality, is one of the things that fuelled

:13:31.:13:35.

the risks that led to the credit crunch. What leads to the growth of

:13:35.:13:40.

the state is want to go enhance entitlement, there is nothing wrong

:13:40.:13:46.

with that, want ago decent education for every child, and

:13:46.:13:51.

basic healthcare. We have to move to a place where we have basic

:13:51.:13:55.

entitledment but change how they are delivered. Your experience with

:13:55.:13:58.

Tony Blair, you must have had these conversations about what power you

:13:58.:14:02.

let go of, he brought in devolution. But it is very hard for politicians

:14:02.:14:06.

in power to let go? It is hard. And one of the reasons it is hard is

:14:06.:14:11.

because we have, it is not just the state that centralises, the

:14:11.:14:15.

corporate centre is centralised, the media is centralised. Ministers

:14:15.:14:19.

face the problem of going on radio and TV and defending the actions of

:14:19.:14:22.

someone who is operating anywhere in England, because we expect

:14:23.:14:25.

Whitehall to take responsibility for. That one of the things

:14:25.:14:30.

politicians have to get used to, is saying that is not my job any more.

:14:30.:14:32.

I have genuinely devolved responsibility for that. What

:14:32.:14:38.

happens in your model, where every tiny state operates in its own

:14:38.:14:43.

autonomy, what happens when there is failure? The beauty of the

:14:43.:14:46.

bottom-up. Cities go bankrupt, 20 years ago we were talking about

:14:47.:14:51.

cities going bankrupt left, right and centre. The difference is some

:14:51.:14:54.

cities will be successful and some will fail. There will be pressure

:14:54.:14:59.

and competition between them. can't literally have a city where

:14:59.:15:03.

people are living, failing, right? You can manage. New York had to

:15:03.:15:07.

pull out of and and compete. The state can step in for emergencies.

:15:07.:15:12.

We are not arguing that we should let them. You have the safety net

:15:12.:15:18.

of the state. You have to define an emergency? The point is, people

:15:18.:15:21.

mistake interventionism, in regular affairs, micromanaging things,

:15:21.:15:25.

which the state does, and invariably ends up doing, with the

:15:25.:15:29.

being there for emergency room. We need the state for emergencies. We

:15:29.:15:33.

need the state for things that cannot be done locally, for big

:15:33.:15:36.

failures, but we don't need the state to come and tell us how to

:15:37.:15:41.

increase happiness, we need the state to decrease unhappiness.

:15:41.:15:46.

is so easy to get into the hypothetical realm, let's go back

:15:46.:15:50.

to practical issues. I think you will always create a problem, this

:15:50.:15:54.

will be a controversial, if you pay people more to not work than to

:15:54.:15:58.

work. For example, you will always have a problem if you have an

:15:58.:16:02.

environment in which a fireman and a police officer cannot live within

:16:02.:16:08.

an hour of where they work, because prices have gone so far out of

:16:08.:16:12.

control. So there are some basic rules of the game. Whether you are

:16:12.:16:15.

a Conservative or a liberal, it doesn't matter. Again, it just

:16:15.:16:18.

comes down to balance sheet management, and one of the problems

:16:18.:16:24.

we have had, is the Governments are not subject to the same accounting

:16:24.:16:27.

rules as corporations and therefore, they borrow more than they should.

:16:27.:16:31.

It is also true that when the market fails, as it has,

:16:31.:16:34.

disastrously in the last few years, thank God for the state, if it

:16:34.:16:38.

wasn't for the state we would be in the real state of collapse.

:16:38.:16:42.

state causeded it to collapse. You have the state bailing out and

:16:42.:16:47.

allowing something too big to fail. We have run out of time. Should gay

:16:47.:16:49.

marriages be allowed to take place within a church. The Prime Minister

:16:49.:16:53.

has confirmed he wants MPs to vote on legislation, which would allow

:16:53.:16:56.

the ceremonies to be conducted in places of religious worship, no

:16:56.:16:59.

wonder the plans to be set out this week, religious organisations,

:16:59.:17:04.

which do not want to hold these services, will be given legal

:17:04.:17:12.

protection. Guaranteed exemption. It is something that has brought

:17:12.:17:16.

the three main party leaders together. A vow to support the

:17:16.:17:19.

right for gay couples to get married. But there is significant

:17:19.:17:22.

opposition from the Tory backbenches. Perhaps suspecting

:17:22.:17:28.

they are not all likely to honour and obey, David Cameron has

:17:28.:17:31.

promised a free vote on the issue. I'm in favour of gay marriage,

:17:32.:17:35.

because I'm a massive supporter of marriage, and I don't want gay

:17:35.:17:38.

people to be excluded from great institution.

:17:38.:17:42.

Key to the Government's response to the consultation, will be its

:17:42.:17:45.

proposal that churches and other religious institutions can marry

:17:45.:17:48.

gay couples if they wish, but legal protection given to those who

:17:49.:17:53.

prefer to remain exempt. This is unlikely to end the trouble

:17:53.:17:57.

and strife, the consultation period has exposed very public divisions.

:17:57.:18:01.

The Church of England, itself reeling after its synod voted

:18:01.:18:05.

against women bishops, remains firmly opposed to gay weddings,

:18:06.:18:09.

arguing they would lead to the deillusion of marriage.

:18:09.:18:14.

The Government -- deluegs of marriage. The Government hopes to

:18:14.:18:20.

have a vote before Easter, and applying to the statutes before

:18:20.:18:24.

2014, that is assuming the Lords doesn't block it. In which case,

:18:24.:18:31.

the honeymoon may have to just wait. Does the proposed legislation go

:18:31.:18:39.

far enough or too far. We have my guest, one in favour of marriage,

:18:39.:18:44.

and a group committed to the biblical teaching on marriage.

:18:44.:18:48.

Would you be happy to see gay marriages conducted in your church?

:18:48.:18:53.

No, because for two reasons, one, the concept of gay marriage is a

:18:53.:18:57.

contradiction in temples, it is not marriage. It would change -- in

:18:57.:19:01.

terms, it is not marriage, it would change everybody's marriage. We are

:19:01.:19:04.

not interested in protected churches on this. The fact of the

:19:04.:19:08.

matter is marriage is not just something for believers, it is for

:19:08.:19:10.

everybody. We are interested in the issue for the whole of the state.

:19:10.:19:14.

It is interesting, following your recent piece on the size of the

:19:14.:19:19.

state, here we have a Conservative Prime Minister, interfering in the

:19:19.:19:21.

religious beliefs, in fact the religious institutions of a society.

:19:21.:19:25.

This is extraordinary. Let me ask, would you be happy to see any

:19:25.:19:33.

service take place in any church? No, because...This Isn't about a

:19:33.:19:36.

personal church, you think it shouldn't be any church? It is

:19:36.:19:41.

saying, this will be saying that God blesses something, which he

:19:41.:19:46.

clearly teaches, both in creation and in the Bible Bible, he does not

:19:46.:19:49.

bless, it is not -- in the Bible, he does not bless, it is not right.

:19:49.:19:54.

This would come from the synod, you would say the Bible is the top, but

:19:54.:19:59.

in legislative terms, this would be something the synod would oppose,

:19:59.:20:02.

right? The House of Bishops of the Church of England, in response to

:20:02.:20:05.

the Government's consultation, said that they could not support the

:20:05.:20:13.

concept of gay marriage. This won't happen, then? Will it?

:20:13.:20:18.

think marriage will be opened as far as we can see to gay people, as

:20:18.:20:22.

well as straight people in Britain, at some time, in the next few years,

:20:22.:20:26.

maybe as early as 2015. But not in churches? Some churches, because

:20:26.:20:30.

there are churches who believe quite as strongly that they should

:20:30.:20:33.

marry gay people, as there are church that is believe they

:20:33.:20:36.

shouldn't. What would happen to those churches, then, would they be

:20:36.:20:43.

outside the thinking of the rest of the Church of England, what

:20:43.:20:48.

position would these churches who went against that be? You can say

:20:48.:20:52.

people have a right to object to marrying particular people, that is

:20:52.:20:57.

well enshrined in English law, for example, Clergy can object to

:20:57.:21:01.

marrying divorcees, that is the case since the 1920s, there have

:21:01.:21:09.

been provisions for Clergy's consciences since 1907, deceased

:21:09.:21:13.

wives' sisters. You don't need anything in law that protects you,

:21:13.:21:18.

you have always had the right to protect yourself from certain kinds

:21:18.:21:23.

of marriages? On-air I was discussing with maybe of the gay

:21:23.:21:28.

and lesbian transgender movement, who said they would bring cases

:21:28.:21:32.

against churches who wouldn't. This is a red herring, the issue is not

:21:32.:21:36.

whether or not it is in churches, the Government is trying to buy off

:21:36.:21:39.

religious opposition. We will send to every parliamentarian, is there

:21:39.:21:43.

a case for same-sex marriages, and issues of eligibility and

:21:43.:21:48.

consequences next week. It sets out hard social scientific evidence

:21:48.:21:51.

that same-sex marriage, same-sex relationships, formallising them in

:21:52.:21:58.

society is not a good thing for human flourishing. Scientific is a

:21:58.:22:03.

powerful word to use in an argument like this? Extraordinary, there are

:22:03.:22:06.

several jurisdictions in the world where there is marriage equality,

:22:06.:22:12.

the sky hasn't fallen in, in any many of them marriage is stronger,

:22:12.:22:15.

divorce rates have come down in some of them. We don't know what

:22:15.:22:18.

the relationship is, quite honestly there is absolutely no evidence

:22:18.:22:22.

that the sky falls in when you do it. Why not do it tomorrow, if they

:22:22.:22:24.

are always going to oppose it on that side of the church, why would

:22:24.:22:28.

you even wait for the Prime Minister, or the MPs to introduce

:22:28.:22:33.

it? I think, very sadly, the Church of England has a long debate about

:22:33.:22:36.

this, 20, 30, years ago we were thinking seriously about the

:22:37.:22:42.

position of gay people in society, in the 1990, it became politicised,

:22:42.:22:47.

I put my head over the parapet on gay marriage earlier thisy, I have

:22:47.:22:51.

had 500 responses from people, including many Clergy in the Church

:22:51.:22:54.

of England, the overwhelming majority of them are in favour of

:22:54.:22:57.

marriage equality, it is about one in ten weren't, of the responses I

:22:57.:23:00.

got. The interesting ones were people who said we can't talk about

:23:00.:23:04.

it, what we need to do is talk about it. By not having gay

:23:04.:23:07.

marriages in the Church of England for a while, that will give us

:23:07.:23:17.

space to work this one out properly, and look find the rather infatanile

:23:17.:23:22.

terms it has been talked about. you worried about getting left

:23:22.:23:25.

behind and making yourself irrelevant, if the vast majority of

:23:25.:23:28.

people have moved on, on this issue? The Church of England has

:23:28.:23:32.

never set its doctrine by public opinion poll or popularity. It has

:23:32.:23:36.

changed it? What has changed it? has changed, for example, whether

:23:37.:23:40.

it will marry people who have had sex before marriage, whether it

:23:40.:23:44.

will, as the examples were given, brothers of the dead brothers and

:23:44.:23:48.

all the rest of it, these things do move on? That is all within the

:23:48.:23:53.

concept of woman and man as the fundamental components of marriage.

:23:53.:23:57.

Why should that be a stronger definition than any of other

:23:57.:24:01.

examples? The evidence is, the evidence is that for human

:24:01.:24:04.

flourishing, for providing children with the rights to have a mother

:24:04.:24:10.

and a father, for the best context for both children being reared, and

:24:10.:24:13.

also for long-term. Real marriage ensures the future. The evidence is

:24:14.:24:18.

that if you want to have a life- long committed same-sex

:24:18.:24:24.

relationship, hold on, hold on. don't mind marrying older people

:24:24.:24:29.

who might not pro-create? If you have that, then non-monogamous

:24:29.:24:32.

same-sex relationships are much more continuous than if you are

:24:33.:24:37.

monogamous, it is different for marriage. You asked me then,

:24:37.:24:41.

another question, which was? If it is about procreation, why don't you

:24:41.:24:44.

mind marrying older people who aren't having children? Because,

:24:44.:24:49.

two reasons, it is pro-creative in principle, and secondly, they can

:24:49.:24:58.

still be a mother and father to children. The using phrase "equal"

:24:58.:25:02.

it changes marriage for everyone. have discovered there are gay

:25:02.:25:07.

couples in Britain, living together in fruitful, joyful relationships,

:25:07.:25:12.

sometimes for 20, 30 years, which entirelyly mirror the Christian

:25:12.:25:15.

virtues of marriage. As far as marriage being gendered, that is a

:25:15.:25:19.

strand of Christian teaching on marriage, not exclusively so. In

:25:19.:25:22.

the Bible the church is described as the bride of Christ, that

:25:22.:25:25.

doesn't mean all Christians are female, it doesn't mean they have

:25:25.:25:31.

to have sex, and who are the kids? It reduces it to be absurdity to

:25:31.:25:36.

say it is engendered in that way, it shouldn't be now. I disagree.

:25:36.:25:38.

Thank you for coming in if and talking about it.

:25:38.:25:46.

It is called, compellingly, bomb site.org, an interactive --

:25:47.:25:51.

bombsite.org, an interactive map that illustrates where each bomb

:25:51.:25:58.

fell in the blits and how the city was affected. The bliplts, which

:25:58.:26:02.

killed thousands and destroyed more than a million homes. This map

:26:02.:26:06.

pieces together the targeting, with photos and the history that arose

:26:06.:26:16.

from it. They accumulate and cluster, as

:26:16.:26:22.

though in an unwanted finding on a medical chart. In fact, this is the

:26:22.:26:27.

pathology of London during the Blitz. Each red dot represents a

:26:27.:26:32.

bomb site. Take a suburban street like Pember Road in Kensal Rise, in

:26:32.:26:38.

the North West of theAl. The new website records that -- of the

:26:38.:26:41.

capital. The new website records that Nazi bombers struck here. The

:26:41.:26:46.

houses all looked like this, except here, where number 24 used to be.

:26:46.:26:51.

have a couple of pictures here of Ivy. My cousin was left in the

:26:51.:26:56.

house, at the age of 16, very responsible lady. And the parents,

:26:56.:27:03.

my uncle and aunt, went out, probably to the Kilburn Empire,

:27:03.:27:10.

which they used to frequent, had a lovely evening. When they walked

:27:10.:27:17.

back home, the house had been bombed. Ivy was nowhere to be found.

:27:18.:27:25.

But she was found some while later, she had been, the house had

:27:25.:27:27.

suffered pretty well a direct hit and she was blown to piece. This is

:27:27.:27:33.

the sad thing, she was just at the age where she had young men taking

:27:33.:27:38.

an interesting. It all just disappeared like that.

:27:38.:27:42.

Thick smoke hangs over the heart of Britain, as a choking dawn reveals

:27:42.:27:47.

the terrors of the night. London has been wounded during the hours

:27:47.:27:57.
:27:57.:27:58.

of darkness, what colossal strength runs in her veins news reals of the

:27:58.:28:03.

blits shows the landmarks. There is a lot of misconceptions about the

:28:03.:28:08.

Blitz, that it was mainly aimed at the East End of London, it was

:28:08.:28:13.

terribly badly hit there, it was the dock, and the infrastructure in

:28:13.:28:17.

the place. It hit the west just as hard. There were 20,000 people

:28:17.:28:24.

killed, predominantly in the East End, but the leafy, outer suburbs

:28:24.:28:30.

were hit too. Causing devastation and terror, that was the motive of

:28:30.:28:34.

the Germans, to intell fear into that population.

:28:34.:28:42.

-- Instill fear into the population. Each red dot of the map, is a sign

:28:42.:28:49.

of something perishable,ry. We used to play in the bombed -- Memory.

:28:49.:28:53.

used to play in the bombed buildings, when I think we used to

:28:53.:28:57.

go up rafters with bits missing. I recall a house, we must have passed

:28:57.:29:03.

there the day after it had been bombed. It was a most extraordinary

:29:03.:29:05.

sight. There was a policeman standing outside, I recall, and

:29:06.:29:10.

debris in the road. And the whole of the front of the house had been

:29:10.:29:20.
:29:20.:29:20.

blown off. And there was a bed hanging out into the road.

:29:20.:29:24.

website will excavate war time from the rubble of history for a new

:29:24.:29:30.

begin raise, or so some hope. -- Generation, or so some hope.

:29:30.:29:34.

lot of young people are interested in the world war, because they are

:29:34.:29:37.

part of the key stage programmes, anything that shows people a little

:29:37.:29:41.

bit more, uncovers the archaeology of London, or any other city, is

:29:42.:29:44.

very, very valuable. It is interesting, people always say, the

:29:44.:29:48.

Second World War, people are obsessed with that, you know, can't

:29:48.:29:54.

we have closure. If I said to you, I'm going to take you to a plague

:29:54.:29:59.

pit, you wouldn't say, for goodness sake can't we get over the 16th

:29:59.:30:04.

century, can't we move on. website, and a forth coming app to

:30:04.:30:13.

go with it, are new tools for joining the dots of history.

:30:13.:30:16.

Review is up next. Matter that is in Glasgow.

:30:16.:30:22.

In the last book special of the year, we will be marking the 50th

:30:22.:30:27.

anniversary of A Clockwork Orange, and also looking at a book about00

:30:27.:30:30.

years of film censorship, which includes Kubrick's controversial

:30:30.:30:34.

film. There is a new novel from the creator of Reginald Perrin, another

:30:34.:30:38.

posthumous publication from David Foster Wallace, and the latest

:30:38.:30:42.

collection from Oliver Sachs, the world's favourite neurologist,

:30:42.:30:48.

which he calls an anthology of hallucinations! That is all from

:30:48.:30:52.

Newsnight. We leave you with a view from the earth as seen by NASA's

:30:52.:30:56.

newest satellite, back down to earth on Monday.

:30:56.:31:03.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS